If Amazon wants to continue to recoup this investment from Alexa sales, Amazon needs totally different leadership on the Alexa team. Alexa's app and user experience are terrible. Adding a skill is a highly convoluted process.
Most notably and most recently, the decision to drop access from 3rd party apps to its lists is an incredibly short-sighted idea. No one wants to use Amazon's software. Make Alexa effortless to use with 3rd party software.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/31/24168681/amazon-alexa-thi...
The UI is hilariously bad. I’m playing a NY Times podcast and say “Alexa, pause.” Two minutes later, I say “Alexa, play” and it starts playing some random news clip from ABC News.
You've been breaking the site guidelines by posting flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments repeatedly. We've warned you before not to do this. If you keep it up, we're going to have to ban you, so could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on? We'd appreciate it.
There's nothing wrong with buybacks, they're tax-friendly dividends. They shouldn't be shamed for returning value to shareholders which it seems you're implying.
What should be shamed is a tax code that differentiates dividends and buybacks.
Alright. Then any company that participates in share buyback obviously shouldn't get any stimulus money, then right? Because if they have that much cash on hand, they should give it to shareholders instead of investing in the company or saving it for lean times.
Correct, the government should generally not hand out stimulus as free money. Forcing the company to issue new stock and sell it to the government at market rate achieves all of the positive effects of stimulus, while also eliminating the perverse incentive to operate with no safety margin in the hopes of a bailout.
I feel like something the American Left and the American Right could agree on is that white collar criminals should face the same kind of tough law enforcement consequences as regular street criminals. How would one start pushing for such legislation?
Feel like left or right, most elected US officials are corporatists and not willing to bite (or even upset) the hand that feeds them. That said, the right is decidedly not in favor of stronger enforcement/regulation.
> most elected US officials are corporatists and not willing to bite (or even upset) the hand that feeds them
This seems like a clear fact, and yet many will call you a conspiracy theorist for pointing out the obvious. It's probably a symptom of the tribalist aspect of red vs blue. People need to be de-programmed of the team sports to finally realize that their "side" is beholden to corporations and not the people. Only then will we see real action to criminalize white collar behavior.
For most people, white collar crime is relatively abstract. Something to be outraged about when you hear it on the news, but not something that you can feel affecting you personally. Blue collar crime, especially the kind that occurs at a personal level, is more visceral. People really want to see those people kept away from them, more than they want to see rehabilitation. Whether rehabilitation would lead to better long-term outcomes gets ignored.
The Boeing situation is a little different, of course, since it really did kill a bunch of people.
No one can prove a specific Boeing executive's actions caused people to die. There would have to be an email from the executive stating
"I think we should cut costs here and here and I acknowledge this may cause x% of passengers to die".
And they're not going to put something like this in an email either:
"Meet with the guy that used to work for us who now works at the FAA and get him to waive or lower so and so standards so this plane can fly and we'll owe him".
Perhaps one of the risks that executives at a high level (i.e. named corporate officers) have to bear in return for their absurd salaries is criminal liability when the corporation commits a crime. This might help align the incentives.
If you ask an average American from either side they will probably agree that white collar criminals should face tougher consequences. If you ask an average politician from either side, they will probably agree on the opposite.
Or won't agree on the definition of white collar crime and if push comes to shove to implement a low they'll likely leave some loopholes, maybe not intentionally, maybe so and the big corporate criminals will find ways to come unscathed
As long as we still punish them enough to make engaging in petty "crime with a victim" not worth it.
None of this SF bull-crap where we basically don't punish the bike thieves, shoplifters and porch pirates but still find people hundreds of dollars for doing donuts in empty parking lots or not obtaining a permit before building a deck on their own house.
I'm fine with not doing squat to deter victimless crime but we can't allow the punishments for crime with a victim to be so low that it's more lucrative than a real job even after being caught many times.
I care more for a disparity between criminals and non criminals to be honest. White collar criminals dilapidate enormous amounts of money but street criminals could directly be violent towards whom they rob. (and being robbed, asides from the financial loss, it often leaves some psychological scars).
I see your point and it's hard to imagine that a person stealing say, some food, because they're starving may do time in prison and yet the author of a multimillion shenanigan goes scot-free, yes that's not fair at all, but lowering the punishment for street crime will make us average people even more miserable. The only rational thing to do is start punishing white crime seriously so it is a huge deterrent. Currently white criminals who get convicted stay in prisons whose conditions are better than the situation of a lot of struggling full time working Americans. I find that appalling
Politicians are unlikely to because they can better relate to white collar criminals than the poor.
The only solution to this is electing more people from diverse backgrounds (inc. class, race, gender, etc), but unfortunately money is extremely effective at winning democratic elections, and those who have it aren't from a diverse background.
>Politicians are unlikely to because they can better relate to white collar criminals than the poor.
It also has something to do with plausible deniability and inability to prove intent with white collar crimes.
How would you be able to prove someone intentionally mis-valued assets? Cut costs specifically to bolster one's own income and not benefit the other shareholders? Hired someone in exchange for a favor or possible future favor? Fired someone for stepping out of line?
Plausible deniability is also the reason for "productive" in person lunch meetings and golf outings. Not that there aren't other positive aspects of in person conversations, but lack of a permanent record is one of its aspects, and can easily be used to cause harm.
For better context, Boeing's annual profits appear to typically be closer to $10B to $20B[0] - with 2019 and 2020 being anomalies for obvious reasons. $2.5B and no jail time still seems laughable in that context.
At least one of the states has a statutory value of a life, but I'm afraid I can't find it now (don't Google it, you will be fed into the intake funnel for wrongful death lawyers), but I think it is around $7M.
That said, $500M is for a victims' fund, about $1.4M/death, the rest appears to be a deterrent to deceiving regulators
I guess I could bear this point if there was a commitment to dedicate this money to something that can actually save orders of magnitude more lives - though even then it's highly debatable. Thing is, is there at least such a promise?
From a security perspective, Signal seems like the winner. I just wish they'd invest in better design/UX across the board especially their desktop app. Their app looks and feels like a boilerplate Electron app.
